Maryland Criminal Attorneys Blog

The Supreme Court decided last week that there was no constitutional bar to mandated strip searches for all individuals that are to be admitted into a jail's general population. In other words, strip searches by the police are permissible no matter the infraction - even for arrests for crimes as minor as failing to pay a fine or driving without insurance

Our Annapolis-based criminal defense attorneys have to knowledge and background to protect the rights of criminal defendants. Every stage in a criminal proceeding, from the arrest and initial booking (and potentially-accompanying strip search) to the culmination of a trial are moments when a defendant needs proper representation to protect his or her rights.

In the Supreme Court's decision, Florence v. Board of Freeholders, the Supreme Court addressed Albert Florence's claims that his civil rights were violated. Mr. Florence was arrested in 2005 when his car, being driven by his wife, was pulled over by the police for speeding. His crime? According to an inaccurate warrant, he had failed to pay a fine; in reality, the warrant should not have been issued, but was because of a computer error. After his arrest, he was twice strip searched, and then held for six days without charge, until the police realized the mistake.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether Mr. Florence's rights were violated by the two strip searches, following his arrest for a nonviolent crime, when there was no suspicion that he had drugs or weapons on him. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Florence's rights were not violated, because jail security was more pressing than Mr. Florence's privacy. According to Justice Kennedy, who drafted the opinion,

Courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.

While those words might suggest some instance where strip searches would be unreasonable, such would almost never be the case. Any time an individual is coming into the jail, concerns for the security of the officers and other inmates will override the arrestee's personal issues of privacy. The only time that would not apply is if there is substantial evidence that an individual does not pose a risk. And the fact that the individual was arrested for a minor crime does not meet the "substantial evidence" standard. "Correctional officials must be permitted to devise reasonable search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their facilities."

Continue reading "You Can Be Strip Searched Upon Arrest in Maryland" »

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that criminal defendants have the constitutional right to effective representation when making the decision as to whether or not to accept a plea bargain. In two paired cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Court ruled that an attorney's mistakes at the plea bargain stage can render a defendant's plea ineffectual.

Our Annapolis criminal defense attorneys are experienced at giving our clients the right advice with regard to all of the client's available options, including plea deals. In today's legal climate, more often than not, criminal charges are resolved by way of plea bargains, rather than trials. Our attorneys are prepared to provide our clients with the proper guidance as to what will give the clients the best results possible.

In Cooper, Cooper's attorney informed him that he could not be convicted of assault with intent to murder, because of the attorney's belief that Michigan law did not permit a finding of intent to murder when the victim was shot below the waist; the attorney was wrong. As a result, Cooper rejected a plea deal, under which he would have received a recommended 51-to-85-month sentence. He was subsequently convicted at trial, and received the mandatory minimum 185-to-360-month sentence.

In Frye, the defendant was arrested for driving with a revoked license, the third time he had been arrested for that offense. Frye faced a maximum of four years in prison on the charge. The prosecutor in the case provided Frye's attorney with an offer to reduce the charge, making it a misdemeanor, with a 90 day jail sentence. Frye's attorney, however, did not bother to relay the offer to his client. Frye ultimately plead guilty to the charge, without the benefit of the offered plea bargain, and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Continue reading "Maryland Defendants Protected by Supreme Court Plea Deal Decision" »

In a case profiled here in October, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling this week reversing the conviction of Antoine Jones. The case held the potential to drastically alter the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but due to the very narrow grounds the Court based its ruling on, many of the issues related to warrantless electronic monitoring of suspects has been left to future cases.

While the Fourth Amendment may seem technical or scholastic to some, the meaning of the right to be secure in one's person and possessions has far-reaching effects in most criminal cases. The charges the State brings against a defendant, whether murder charges or drug possession, almost always implicate the Fourth Amendment. Our experienced Annapolis drug possession attorneys have the knowledge and understanding of the Fourth Amendment necessary to protect our clients' rights.

The Supreme Court held that the case was a "classic trespassory search" within the meaning originally provided by the framers of the Fourth Amendment, because of the nature of the police's action: "[t]he Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.". The earliest case law on the Fourth Amendment only addressed violations of privacy that involved physical trespass. For example, in Olmstead v. United States, decided in 1928, the Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation when a wiretap was attached to telephone wires on public streets; without a physical trespass to an individual's property or person, there was no search.

The Court altered its analysis of what a Fourth Amendment search was in Katz v. United States, a 1967 case in which a listening device was placed on the outside of a public telephone booth. With that case, the Court expanded the protections of the Fourth Amendment to include more than situations where there was a physical trespass to a person or his or her property. Under Katz, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred when the police violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The Katz decision did not, however, get rid of the restrictions on traditional "trespassory" searches.

Thus, applied to this case, the Court held that the police's action in placing the GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle constituted a Fourth Amendment search because there was a physical trespass to his property. Because the police did not have a valid warrant at the time they placed the tracking device, they violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Court reversed Jones' conviction.

What is perhaps most interesting to this decision is what it did not decide. Justice Scalia, along with Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy joined, provided what is considered to be the majority opinion, because Justice Sotomayor concurred with the opinion. Justice Sotomayor suggested that she wished the majority had expanded its opinion, pointing out that "[i]n cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion's trespassory test may provide little guidance."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Decides - But Doesn't Decide - Issue of GPS Tracking" »

Detroit Tigers first baseman Miguel Cabrera recently plead guilty to DUI in St. Lucie County, Florida. Notable in the case is the plea deal his attorney negotiated for him, avoiding jail time and allowing him to put the case behind him before spring training starts up.

Our experienced Maryland DUI attorneys have years of practice negotiating the best possible results for our clients, in legal representation ranging from DUIs to drug arrests and beyond. Our attorneys recognize that each case is different and requires particularized focus, both related to the facts of the case and the client's individual needs.

The facts of Cabrera's arrest show that his February 2011 arrest was not a run-of-the-mill DUI. After arguing with and threatening a manager and a police officer at a bar when he was refused service, Cabrera took off in his Land Rover before other Fort Pierce, Florida police arrived on the scene. Later that night, a sheriff's deputy came across Cabrera's truck, which had smoke rising from the engine. The police noted that Cabrera had bloodshot, watery eyes, and slurred speech. With officers on the scene, Cabrera grabbed a bottle of scotch and took a drink - a move that probably did not help his cause!

Cabrera actually faced a number of charges, including the DUI, two resisting an officer charges, and an open container violation, which his attorney was able to negotiate into the plea deal. As a result of the deal, Cabrera must comply with a number of sanctions: he was fined $500, had to pay about $1400 in court costs, is on probation for a year, must attend a couple of classes and perform 50 hours of community service, and had his driver's license suspended for six months. Despite the sanctions imposed, none of which appear to be especially onerous to Cabrera, the plea deal benefited him because it allowed him to focus his time and energy on the upcoming baseball season, and avoided any possibility of jail time. While "celebrity justice" probably played a bit of a role in the outcome, it looks like the attorney obtained a very favorable deal for his client under the circumstances.

Our attorneys are experienced in defending DUI, DWI, and other drunk-driving charges in Baltimore, Annapolis, and throughout Maryland. Each case is different, but our experienced attorneys work to achieve the best possible deal for each of our clients' particular circumstances.

This morning, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Public Defender Act, all indigent defendants have a right to representation at the initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner.

Our experienced Baltimore criminal defense attorneys can handle client representation at all stages of criminal proceedings, from the initial appearance through to a court or jury trial.

The initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner is an important stage of a defendant's exposure to the criminal justice system. At this appearance, the Commissioner tells the defendant of the charge(s) and the allowable penalties, and provides the defendant with a copy of the statement of charges. The Commissioner advises the defendant of his or her right to counsel, and of the right to a preliminary hearing. Thereafter, the Commissioner, in cases where a defendant was arrested without a warrant, determines whether there was probable cause to support the defendant's arrest.

If the Commissioner determines that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the Commissioner then determines whether the defendant is eligible for release or whether bail should be set. This determination can be vital to a defendant, as a Commissioner's decision to impose bail, as the Court found, is summarily confirmed by a Judge at a subsequent bail review hearing. Under Maryland Rule 2-416, the Commissioner considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense (including the supporting evidence at the potential sentence upon conviction), (2) the defendant's prior record of appearance at court proceedings; (3) the defendant's family ties, employment status and history, financial resources, reputation, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, and length of residence in this State*; (4) any recommendation of an agency that conducts pretrial release investigations; (5) any recommendation of the State's Attorney; (6) any information presented by the defendant or defendant's counsel; (7) the danger of the defendant to the community; (8) the danger of the defendant to himself or herself; and (9) any other relevant factor factor related to the defendant's likelihood of appearance at trial and the risk to the safety of others, such as prior convictions. The Commissioner, applying this Rule, can and often does determine that bail should be set. If the defendant is unable to meet his bail, he or she will be held in jail until a bail review hearing, and possibly until his or her trial date.

The "Public Defender Act" is codified at section 16-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. The Court relied on two provisions of the Public Defender Act to find the right to representation. The Court noted that under section 16-204(b)(1)(i), indigent defendants are entitled to representation in proceedings where they are alleged to have committed a "serious offense." In section 16-204(b)(1)(iv), indigent defendants are statutorily guaranteed the right to an attorney at any other proceeding in which they face the possibility of commitment to jail. Between the two sections, all hearings before the Commissioner are covered. The former section addresses serious crime, and the latter section encompasses all other defendants, because the hearing is a determination of whether or not bail will be set; by definition, as the Commissioner may decline to release an individual on his or her own recognizance, jail is a possibility when a defendant appears before the Commissioner.

Continue reading "Maryland Court Finds a Right to Represenation at Initial Appearance" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a ruling last week in a case that could have long-reaching effects on police interrogation, overturning a trial court's suppression of a Defendant's statements based on a finding that he was not in custody when he incriminated himself. Although the case will surely be appealed, if the Court of Special Appeals' ruling is upheld, a loophole in the requirement that police officers provide arrested individuals their "Miranda rights" has been expanded.

The rights protected by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, have long been a bastion of protection for criminal defendants: these include, primarily, the right to not provide the police with self-inculpatory statements, and the right to representation by an attorney. The police know that when a suspect has an attorney representing him or her, the chances of obtaining incriminating evidence against that suspect drop off precipitously. Our experienced Annapolis criminal defense attorneys have the background necessary to protect these and other rights that criminal defendants have at their disposal.

In State v. Thomas, the Defendant Thomas was interrogated at a police station regarding allegations that he had sexually assaulted his 14-year-old daughter. After a pre-trial suppression hearing, the trial court found that a reasonable person in the Defendant's position - sitting in a police interrogation room with the door closed, albeit unlocked, and being questioned about having sex with his daughter - would not have felt free to leave. The trial court also determined that the detectives were not merely asking questions to determine what had happened; they were actively trying to develop a case against the Defendant. As the trial court stated, "[the detectives] were gathering evidence. 'What did you do? Where was she touched? When did it start? How many times did you do it?' And the argument is that Miranda warnings should not have been given?"

The trial court continued, "[a]t the end of the day, the query remains, what is wrong with giving people their Miranda rights? And I'll tell you what's wrong with it. As soon as defendants are given their Miranda warnings, they often lawyer up. And when they lawyer up, they don't get the information that detectives want to get."

The State appealed the evidence suppression under Section 12-302 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, which permits interlocutory appeals under very limited circumstances. Following the appeal, the Court of Special Appeals overturned the trial court's suppression. There are a number of factors that the Court had to weigh to determine whether the interrogation at the police station was "custodial." These include:

when and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many police were present, what the officers and the defendant said and did, the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness. Facts pertaining to events before the interrogation are also relevant, especially how the defendant got to the place of questioning whether he came completely on his own, in response to a police request or escorted by police officers. Finally, what happened after the interrogation whether the defendant left freely, was detained or arrested may assist the court in determining whether the defendant, as a reasonable person, would have felt free to break off the questioning.

Pre-Interrogation

The Court of Special Appeals determined that since the Defendant had driven himself at the station at the mere request, rather than demand, of the police officers, that there was no coercion on the part of the police in getting him to the station.

Continue reading "Maryland Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court's Suppression Ruling" »

While the mental image we all conjure of a "criminal" might be someone in handcuffs being stuffed into the back of an Anne Arundel squad car, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them in Maryland, find themselves in the crosshairs of the "Feds" instead. And not always for the reasons you might expect, such as drug running, murder, or counterfeiting. The list of Federal crimes (which is much longer than what is shown through that link), has grown to include tax crimes, immigration violations, and environmental crimes. Every year on average, over 50 new Federal crimes are added to the books.

Our experienced Maryland criminal law attorneys are not just members of the Maryland Bar; our attorneys are admitted to practice before the Federal Courts in Maryland as well. Our attorneys can assist you in facing criminal charges ranging from the most notorious to the criminal charges that you might not even understand, such as when you are charged with a crime for doing exactly what you thought was the correct thing to do.

A Maryland man named Lawrence Lewis recently learned that criminal penalties can apply even when you believe that you are doing the right thing. Mr. Lewis, working as a custodian for at a military retirement home, had to decide what to do when rising sewage waters threatened to flood an area full of sick residents. He did what custodians at the home always did, and what they thought they were supposed to do - he diverted the sewage into an outside storm drain, one he thought was connected to the local water treatment facility. As it turns out, the sewage flowed directly into the Potomac River, and Mr. Lewis found himself facing Federal charges for violating the Clean Water Act.

Typically, criminal activity consists of two parts: a mens rea, that is, a "guilty mind," and an actus reus, or the "guilty act." The "guilty act" is fairly self-explanatory: it means the action that violated the law. But typically, for someone to be guilty of a crime, there must also be evidence that there was an intent to commit the crime. Mens rea suggests that the person who is guilty of a criminal act acted in some sort of culpable fashion. But as Mr. Lewis learned, not all crimes require a guilty mind. Sometimes, you can be found guilty even when you believe that you are not only not breaking the law, but when you believe you are doing something absolutely necessary for the public well-being.

Mr. Lewis' "crime" had no mens rea. In the end, it did not matter what he thought was right. Rather than facing a trial and possible jail time, Mr. Lewis' attorney (not affiliated with Brassel Law Group) worked with the Federal prosecutor to set up a plea deal, under which Mr. Lewis accepted a year of probation.

Our Maryland criminal attorneys are well-versed in assisting clients reach the right decision when it comes to fighting charges or accepting plea deals. Each case is different, whether there are allegations that a defendant committed murder, was caught with a bag of marijuana, or even violated an obscure law when he thought he was doing the right thing. Each case needs its own analysis, and an advocate that will fight for the best resolution for the client.

Recently the highest court in Maryland reinstated the murder conviction (link requires Daily Record login) of a defendant whose conviction had been overturned by the Court of Special Appeals. In White v. State, the defendant was charged in Maryland with a murder in which the body was actually discovered in Washington, D.C.. The Court held that the State's Attorney's argument to the jury as to what a hypothetical D.C. jury would do with the case if the Maryland jury acquitted and he was then retried in D.C. - and what the defense's arguments would be if the case got that far - was not an improper argument.

The Court of Appeals' decision demonstrates just how important it is to develop a strong case for trial; the State is given tremendous leeway to make arguments that create an unfair bias for the criminal defendant facing trial. An experienced attorney is necessary both to develop that trial strategy, and to push back against the State's power.

At trial, White's counsel argued with regard to the murder charge that his client faced, that there was no evidence as to where the fatal gunshots actually occurred; the shots could have been fired in Maryland or in the District of Columbia. As such, according to White, since it is the State's burden of proving that the fatal shot occurred in Maryland, the jury was required to convict.

The State countered White, essentially arguing that the defendant would argue to a D.C. jury the opposite - that there was no evidence that the crime occurred in D.C. - and that a D.C. jury might not convict because of the same argument. The State's Attorney argued:

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Appeals Reinstates Murder Conviction" »

Charles County, Maryland Sheriff Rex Coffey recently told citizens at a community meeting that if they ever had a chance to serve on a criminal jury, they should find the defendant guilty every time.

While this Sheriff's statements are an extreme example of the type of difficulties a Maryland criminal defendant may have in obtaining an unbiased jury at trial, there are many factors that can influence the perspectives of prospective jurors long before they are called to jury duty. Our Maryland criminal defense attorneys are experienced at selecting jurors that will provide our clients the best opportunities at trial.

Sheriff Coffey told the attendees that, "when you get the opportunity to serve on a jury in Charles County, listen to the evidence and then find them guilty."

He was not concerned about wrongful convictions - at least not in his jurisdiction: "That crap don't happen in Charles County. It's real simple -- if we don't think you're guilty we don't arrest you to begin with."

Notably with regard to his point on the subject of the relationship between guilt and an arrest, Coffey undermined his own argument for the jury to convict every time when he acknowledged that it only requires probable cause to arrest an individual. He is correct to state that probable cause is required to arrest someone, but he is flat out wrong when he equates the standards for arrest with the standards for conviction. For a jury to find an individual guilty of a charge that the State has brought, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt - a much higher standard.

Continuing, Coffey even went so far as to say that anyone who testifies or argues that someone is not guilty is lying:

We don't just arrest people who are innocent. It's probable cause it's a lot more than that. I can't say it enough: You get in that courtroom and those defense attorneys start giving you this crap about how this person's innocent and never been before the court before ... and for some reason the only ones not allowed to lie is the police officer. Everyone else is in there lying.You see the stupid stuff that goes on. He [a defendant] had his whole family come in and lie for him. We told the truth and the jury says not guilty.

He concluded, "When you get a chance to convict someone, do it! Do it! Because I'm telling you jail is a lot nicer than it ought to be," Coffey said.

Sheriff Coffey's comments are directly opposed to the protections that all criminal defendants are provided, both under the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution. As the Sixth Amendment provides,

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .

Continue reading "Maryland Sheriff Wants Jurors to Convict Every Time" »

Next month, in a case that has multiple connections to the State of Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument over whether the prolonged, warrantless use of a GPS tracking device is an unreasonable search precluded by the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case, United States v. Jones, could have far-reaching effects on the government's ability to track its citizens without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

The Jones case will have a direct impact on Maryland criminal jurisprudence. In 2008, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in Stone v. State that the use of a GPS device without a warrant is consistent with the 4th Amendment and prior Supreme Court decisions. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, Maryland search and seizure law will change. An Anne Arundel County attorney experienced in the application of the 4th Amendment to the State's ever-increasing use of technology is essential to protect the rights of individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated.

In Jones, the DC police department obtained a warrant to place a GPS device on Jones' Jeep, but the police installed the GPS device after the warrant had expired, and while the Jeep was in Maryland, outside of the jurisdiction of the DC court that authorized the warrant. The police thereafter tracked Jones' movements for a month, including his visits to a suspected "stash house" in Fort Washington, Maryland. Based in part on the evidence obtained from the GPS tracking, Jones, an owner of a DC nightclub, was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute over 5kg of cocaine, and over 50g of cocaine base.

The closest Supreme Court precedent to the issue before the Court is United States v. Knotts. In that case, the police placed a radio transmitter in a container of ether, and tracked the movements of an individual from a location in Minnesota to a secluded cabin in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads, and thus the monitoring of those movements did not constitute a search.

The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia held that the tracking of Jones movements for an entire month constituted a search that implicated the 4th Amendment's protections, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court in Knotts. The Circuit Court reasoned that the aggregation of an entire month's worth of Jones' movement was distinguishable from the tracking of a discrete trip that the Supreme Court considered in Knotts. The Court acknowledged that whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable depends in large part upon whether the "private" information has been exposed to the public, and that when an individual drives on a public road, his or her activities are "public." The court nevertheless determined that "to track Jones's movements 24 hours a day for 28 days as he moved among scores of places, thereby discovering the totality and pattern of his individual movements from place to place to place," was distinct from merely tracking his "movements from one place to another." As the Court stated, "the whole of one's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood anyone will observe all those movements is effectively nil." In other words, even if all of the movements were in public, an individual can reasonably expect that his or her movements are not all being tracked by the government by way of a hidden device on his or her vehicle.

Continue reading "Supreme Court to Address Warrantless Use of GPS Tracking Device" »

Following on the heels of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico which this blog addressed in June, and adopting the reasoning of that case, the Maryland Court of Appeals has upheld a criminal defendant's right to confront the testimonial witnesses against him, in a case that could have long-reaching ramifications for cases relying on DNA evidence.

Our Maryland criminal defense attorneys are experienced with the use of DNA evidence in criminal trials, and can protect your rights if you are charged with a crime where the State is relying on DNA evidence. DNA evidence is an extremely complex issue, and necessitates the assistance of an attorney who is comfortable handling the evidentiary issues involved.

In Derr v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed whether the reports created by DNA analysts, without those analysts' in-court testimony supporting those reports, was admissible into evidence. At trial, Derr was found guilty of a December 1984 rape. The State submitted into evidence three reports showing DNA analyses (dated 1985, 2002, and 2004), supported only by the testimony of a supervisory DNA analyst who had not been personally involved in the performing the forensic tests or creating the reports.

The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]" Similar language is found in Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. As the Court of Appeals noted in Derr, the purpose of the protected right is two-fold: to provide the defendant with the opportunity for cross-examination, and to also provide the judge and jury the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor.

This right of a defendant to confront the witnesses the State uses against him or her is broader than simply the right to cross-examine the human witnesses that take the stand. As the Court of Appeals found in this case, the right also extends to situations where the State is using an out-of-court statement, such as a DNA analysis created in a lab. Such a statement, if used as the functional equivalent of in-court testimony, is called a "testimonial statement." The Court held that "any statement made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial," is testimonial in nature. These DNA analysis reports were ruled to be testimonial statements. Under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant has the right to cross-examine the person who made the "testimonial" analysis. The Court ruled that the forensic evidence against Derr was inadmissible because the analysts who performed the tests of the evidence presented against him did not testify, and reversed his conviction.

Continue reading "Maryland Court Rules DNA Evidence Indamissible Without In-Court Supporting Testimony" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in McGurk v. State that an overnight guest was entitled to 4th Amendment protections when on a second-floor balcony at a friend's home in Ocean City, Maryland. The decision is notable because of the Court's analysis of the extent to which the 4th Amendment protections apply in an area that is arguably within the public view.

The application of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution to a particular set of facts in a criminal proceeding often involves a complex analysis of a convoluted area of the law. Fourth Amendment protections have evolved significantly over time, frequently changing with the evolution of the United States Supreme Court, as well as the Maryland appellate courts. An attorney experienced at presenting technical arguments to the Maryland Courts is essential for an individual who finds himself or herself facing criminal charges.

The balcony in question in McGurk was a second-floor balcony with a wooden railing. There were plants, a glass table, and chairs on the balcony. A set of stairs led from the balcony down to the sidewalk in front of the house, and there was no gate blocking the entrance to the stairs or the balcony. Notably, the balcony was not the primary entrance to the residence. At 3:15 a.m. on a summer morning, an officer walked up the stairs to the balcony where McGurk and another individual were sitting because he was searching for the source of an odor of burnt marijuana. After questioning and ultimately searching McGurk and the other individual on the balcony, the officer found marijuana, cocaine, and a large amount of cash in McGurk's possession. McGurk was found guilty after her attempts to suppress the evidence were futile, and she appealed.

In perhaps the most famous case addressing the protections provided by the 4th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States said that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

The McGurk case turned primarily on an analysis of what part of the area surrounding a dwelling is part of the "curtilage" of that dwelling, and thus whether there was an expectation that the balcony in question was open to the public or preserved as private. The United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Dunn that an area is considered to be part of the curtilage of a dwelling house if it is "intimately tied to the home itself." For an area to be part of the curtilage of a home such that the 4th Amendment protections should apply, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is a two-part test to determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy - an individual must demonstrate that he had an actual subjective expectation of privacy, and society must be willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable."

Continue reading "Maryland Court Retains 4th Amendment Protections in Building Curtilage" »

The Court of Appeals ruled in Atkins v. State that a Court's instruction concerning the evidence presented by the State unfairly commented on the evidence. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction. One notable aspect of its opinion, however, was the necessity of the Defendant's attorney to preserve the issue of the impropriety of the instruction for appeal.

A Maryland defense attorney with years of experience in preserving arguments at the trial level is vital to an individual facing criminal charges. Through the preservation of potential appellate arguments, a defendant retains all available chances to preserve his or her freedom.

In Atkins, the Defendant admittedly used a knife in a fight, but his assertion was that it was in self defense, and the knife he used was only a pocket knife. The State, in an effort to make the crime appear more serious than if a small pocket knife was used, argued that the knife used was a 12-inch knife that was recovered in Defendant's bedroom. Notably, there was no link between the 12-inch knife and the victims' wounds, but the pocket knife was not available at the time of trial because the Defendant said that he had thrown it into a lake following the incident.

At trial, the defense attorney extensively cross-examined the police detective about the fact that there was no blood visible on the knife the State alleged was used in the stabbing, and that no tests were performed on the knife to determine if there were any substances on the knife that could link it to the stabbing. The defense attorney was able to get the detective to acknowledge that the State had various tests available to it that could have been used to test the knife for any evidence linking it to the alleged crime scene.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court provided the following instruction, which the Defendant's attorney objected to:

During this trial, you have heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific test. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case.

Continue reading "Maryland Attorney Preserves Issue of Improper Jury Instruction for Appeal" »

Most people's image of the classic criminal defense attorney is that of Johnnie Cochran defending O.J. Simpson, Clarence Darrow's famous closing argument in the case of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, or Shawn Holley Chapman's ongoing attempt to help Lindsey Lohan stay out of jail. The day-to-day reality of what a defense lawyer does, though, is much less likely to make the headlines of Entertainment Tonight or the Baltimore Sun. Most often, the criminal defense attorney's hardest work comes behind the scenes, where frequently the most benefit for the client can be had. This is especially true when a criminal defendant is facing charges that have highly inflamed the public and are drawing a lot of attention from the media.

In order to obtain the best representation possible - for cases in the media or just of concern to the defendant and his or her family - individuals facing criminal charges should seek representation by experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys. At Brassel Law Group, our criminal defense attorneys are highly experienced, and always seek to obtain the best possible results for our clients, whether that result can be found in the courtroom or through negotiation with the prosecutor.

When the media spotlight focuses on a case, the defendant in the case is at an extreme disadvantage. When public attention stays on the facts of a case, not only does the potential jury pool become tainted with significant amounts of inadmissible statements and evidence, but the State's Attorney begins to feel a lot of political pressure as well. State's Attorneys are elected officials in Maryland, and it is inevitable that they will listen to what their constituencies have to say on a matter that has a high public profile.

A case in point was the recent plea deal for Teonna Brown, the young woman charged with the beating of Chrissy Polis, a transgendered woman, at a local McDonald's. The episode caught significant regional media attention, was viewed on video millions of times around the world, and was also used by advocates for transgendered people to strengthen calls for legal protection for the transgendered.

Under such public scrutiny, obtaining a fair trial for Ms. Brown in the case would have been very difficult, and the importance for the criminal defense attorney to press the case behind the scenes became paramount. Charged with first degree assault and other crimes, Ms. Brown faced a minimum of 25 years in prison, with the possibility of having an additional ten years of prison time tacked on because of hate crime charges. Ms. Brown's defense attorney, however, was able to work out a plea deal in which Ms. Brown would only face a ten-year sentence, with five of those years suspended. Thus, while the defense attorney's work was done behind the scenes in this case, it was in all likelihood much more effective than anything that he could have accomplished in front of a jury in a courtroom.

It is vital for criminal defendants to hire experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys immediately when faced with criminal charges. When the public is focused on a particular crime and calling for a heavy punishment, experienced legal representation can be the difference between a very difficult trial and a positive result in plea negotiations.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held last week that a conviction for felony theft over $500 for the theft of a computer could not be upheld, because the testimony regarding the value of the computer stolen was not sufficient to prove the value of the computer at the time of the theft. The case, Champagne v. State, was a reminder of the necessity that criminal defendants force the State to prove all aspects of their case beyond a reasonable doubt, without reliance on supposition or guesswork by the jury.

In order to present the strongest defense available, individuals facing criminal charges should seek representation by experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys. At Brassel Law Group, our criminal defense attorneys are highly experienced, and always seek to obtain the best possible results for our clients.

In Champagne v. State, the defendant was charged with theft of property worth $500 or more based on an allegation that Champagne had stolen a computer. (The Maryland felony theft statute now applies to thefts of over $1,000, due to a change in the law). The prosecution presented testimony by the owner of the computer that he purchased the computer three years before for either $1,600 or $1,800. There was no other evidence as to the value of the computer at the time of the theft.

Although Champagne was convicted of theft over $500 at trial, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the testimony concerning the purchase price, while relevant, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the computer was worth more than $500 at the time of the theft. The Court noted that with some thefts, such as the theft of a one-year-old car, it may be possible to meet the felony standard without specific evidence of the value at the time of the theft, but with an item such as a computer, especially considering the rapid change in technology, such an assumption was impermissible.

While it might not seem significant, the distinction between whether the value of the property was more or less than $500 was the determining factor as to whether Champagne was convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor, and in all likelihood made all the difference as to whether he would face additional time in prison. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney is vital to protect the rights of individuals charged with criminal acts. The rules governing evidence are complex, and an attorney with the knowledge and experience to use these rules to fight for the client can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.